Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 1 place du parvis Notre Dame, Paris, 75004, France.
BMC Med. 2012 Nov 20;10:142. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-142.
"Evergreening" refers to the numerous strategies whereby owners of pharmaceutical products use patent laws and minor drug modifications to extend their monopoly privileges on the drug. We aimed to evaluate the impact of evergreening through the case study of the antidepressant citalopram and its chiral switch form escitalopram by evaluating treatment efficacy and acceptability for patients, as well as health insurance costs for society.
To assess efficacy and acceptability, we performed meta-analyses for efficacy and acceptability. We compared direct evidence (meta-analysis of results of head-to-head trials) and indirect evidence (adjusted indirect comparison of results of placebo-controlled trials). To assess health insurance costs, we analyzed individual reimbursement data from a representative sample of the French National Health Insurance Inter-regime Information System (SNIIR-AM) from 2003 to 2010, which allowed for projecting these results to the whole SNIIR-AM population (53 million people).
In the meta-analysis of seven head-to-head trials (2,174 patients), efficacy was significantly better for escitalopram than citalopram (combined odds ratio (OR) 1.60 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.46)). However, for the adjusted indirect comparison of 10 citalopram and 12 escitalopram placebo-controlled trials, 2,984 and 3,777 patients respectively, efficacy was similar for the two drug forms (combined indirect OR 1.03 (0.82 to 1.30)). Because of the discrepancy, we could not combine direct and indirect data (test of inconsistency, P = 0.07). A similar discrepancy was found for treatment acceptability. The overall reimbursement cost burden for the citalopram, escitalopram and its generic forms was 120.6 million Euros in 2010, with 96.8 million Euros for escitalopram.
The clinical benefit of escitalopram versus citalopram remains uncertain. In our case of evergreening, escitalopram represented a substantially high proportion of the overall reimbursement cost burden as compared with citalopram and the generic forms.
“专利常青”是指药品所有者利用专利法和药品的细微改动来延长药品垄断权的众多策略。我们旨在通过评估抗抑郁药西酞普兰及其手性转换形式艾司西酞普兰的案例来评估“专利常青”的影响,评估其对患者的治疗效果和可接受性,以及对社会的健康保险成本。
为了评估疗效和可接受性,我们进行了疗效和可接受性的荟萃分析。我们比较了直接证据(头对头试验结果的荟萃分析)和间接证据(安慰剂对照试验结果的调整间接比较)。为了评估健康保险成本,我们分析了来自法国国家健康保险互保信息系统(SNIIR-AM)代表性样本的个人报销数据,该数据允许将这些结果推广到整个 SNIIR-AM 人群(5300 万人)。
在七项头对头试验的荟萃分析(2174 名患者)中,艾司西酞普兰的疗效明显优于西酞普兰(合并优势比(OR)1.60(95%置信区间 1.05 至 2.46))。然而,对于 10 项西酞普兰和 12 项艾司西酞普兰安慰剂对照试验的调整间接比较,分别有 2984 名和 3777 名患者,两种药物形式的疗效相似(合并间接 OR 1.03(0.82 至 1.30))。由于存在差异,我们无法合并直接和间接数据(不一致性检验,P = 0.07)。在治疗可接受性方面也发现了类似的差异。2010 年,西酞普兰、艾司西酞普兰及其仿制药的总体报销费用负担为 1.206 亿欧元,其中艾司西酞普兰为 0.968 亿欧元。
艾司西酞普兰相对于西酞普兰的临床获益仍不确定。在我们的“专利常青”案例中,与西酞普兰和仿制药相比,艾司西酞普兰在总体报销费用负担中占了相当大的比例。